I'm thinking young couples who live in loft style appartments, this type floods the Ikea where I live...You walk in their place and it looks exactly like one of the mock up floor plans in Ikea. For some reason I don't see them selling very many of these outside of this core customer base.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IKEA beat Apple to the TV-market
- Thread starter roblin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm thinking young couples who live in loft style appartments, this type floods the Ikea where I live...You walk in their place and it looks exactly like one of the mock up floor plans in Ikea. For some reason I don't see them selling very many of these outside of this core customer base.
I know what you mean, and I agree.
As a recent college grad moving into his first "real" place, I'm trying my hardest to not buy everything from IKEA. Sadly, there's not a lot of affordable, nice-looking options outside of IKEA and its knock-offs.
Tell me please.
How did Ikea beat Apple to the TV market if we don't know what the Apple TV is/does or even exists ?
How did Ikea beat Apple to the TV market if we don't know what the Apple TV is/does or even exists ?
Plus Sony, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, and many more beat them to market. Doesn't make any difference.
If Apple do make a TV, it selling points will not be the same as this Ikea TV.
I would be more interested if the Ikea product was a cabinet with a VESA TV bracket on a post. You get the same benefits as the Ikea TV, but with the TV of your choice.
That's what the girls wear in the north, winter's coming.my god, what did the make her wear?!
product looks quite descent though, ill check one out in an ikea once its out but i wouldnt buy one
Here's the pertinent question about a potential iTV. Let's say it's Quad HD + TV tuner + built-in Apple TV interface + Siri. If it doesn't have the ability to subscribe to American cable channels(HBO, Showtime, AMC) and foreign content(Al Jazeera, Sky TV, English Premier Futbol, etc...) will people want it?
They've been trying to work out deals with content providers so I think that's a sign they understand access to content is much more important than the TV's feature set. In the bigger picture, the TV's success rests on whether Apple can totally change the TV industry's business model.
As an example of what's possible if they're successful, individual channels could become apps, cable providers could become antiquated, and the TV itself would be the content distribution hub. Channels might work like how the Netflix app works. Billing and distribution could happen through iTunes instead Time Warner/Comcast. That coax cable running to your set top box would also get tossed.
The way I see it, its success rests on 2 things:
1) Being able to get all major content providers on board. They were able to do it with individual content on iTunes so I don't see why not. They were able to get music labels on board for iTunes, including Sony Records, so their track record is pretty good.
2) They have to make it viable for consumers. I watch a lot of NBA games. If I can watch them for cheaper using Apple TV's business model, I'll migrate to an Apple TV. Same goes for everything else. I don't care about QVC or Spanish channels or Lifetime, I don't know why I have to pay for them in a basic package. I would like to watch HBO which is usually on a higher tier package. If Apple could reinvent the business model to make it cheaper for me to watch what I want and not have to pay for things I don't want (including the set top box rental and some guy coming over to my house to staple coax to the wall), I'll switch.
Then what'll happen is Time Warner and Comcast will be relegated to internet and landline providers only. And in order for TV's like that Ikea to be functional again, they'd need a new type of "cable box" that uses the new business model. And it looks like Apple is positioning its set top box to fill that void pretty nicely.
Look for them to change the TV industry's business/distribution models. Features like SIRI or a TV with no bezel don't matter.
Well the content providers are already making tons of profits, so unless Apple comes to the table with a huge PILE of cash they have no incentive to license their content to Apple. Also these cable companies are coming up with their own Smart TV interfaces.
Record labels were making a ton of cash with the old physical distribution model. Yet Apple was able to come in and destroy the old model (record stores) by creating a new model (iTunes) that turned out to be more valuable to the consumer than the old one. Netflix did the same thing with video rental brick and mortars. Based on rumors and what they've proven they're good at, Apple is probably trying to do the same thing with television.
And they don't have to give content providers anything. They can just have content providers sign on, let their new business model compete with the cable companies' model and let consumers determine which one is better. Then if consumers find more value in Apple's model, they'll flock away from Comcast and content providers will have to embrace the new model. Just like labels had to do with iTunes and digital distribution. Then once the old model is dying, Apple has leverage over content providers.
If they can eliminate all these overpriced bundles that are the bread and butter of cable companies, they'll be on their way. If they can take a premium channel that's only available as part of a $100 bundle and allow someone who only wants to pay $50/month to watch it while still giving the content provider their cut, they'll win. On top of that they'll be breaking open those channels/ads to a bigger audience and the provider will gain.
Far as cable companies surviving solely by coming up with Smart TV interfaces, there's a book out there called the Innovator's Dilemma. It talks about how industry leaders get too comfortable and fall victim to disruptive technology. I think if Time Warner or whoever was gonna be in a position to compete, they'd be way ahead of the game and would be the ones engineering the disruptive tech, not reacting to it by expecting a set top box retrofitted with internet connectivity to save them.
Sorry but you failed to explain how Apple can get around multi-billion dollar license fees for all this streaming content. Netflix is having a hell of a time acquiring content due to do exorbitant license fees. Apple has the cash, which is why they can pull it off. However you failed to explain how Apple will cause the old model to die.
You said I fail to explain multi-billion dollar license fees (which you never asked about in the first place) and then you answer your own question. You debating with me or you thinking out loud?
I already explained how the old model would die. And what I said about consumers killing off the old model by choosing the new is what's already happened in other markets over the past decade.
This whole TV model changing just parallels other forms of media whose distribution/business models were changed by that disruptive technology known as the internet. It's happened with music (thanks to Apple), movie rentals (thanks to Netflix), and books (thanks to Amazon). In each case, any incumbent company who didn't adapt went down (Tower Records, Borders Books, Blockbuster, etc). This is no different.
The only way the old model die is a combination of Apple opening up their own TV/movie studios and maybe buying a Comcast outright.
Other then vague turtleneckian BS you failed to explain how Apple will destroy the existing cable/satellite model.
I did. Only problem is you can't understand it because your reading comprehension sucks
Meanwhile you're throwing out claims you can't back up. Apple didn't have to make their own music to kill record stores. Netflix didn't have make their own movies to kill Blockbuster. Amazon didn't have to write their own books to kill Borders. But here you are, arguing Apple has to own their own TV studio to kill cable. Why? Because you're willing to make up crap just to argue with me
I'd give P2P the credit for blowing up the traditional music distribution market and, after nearly a decade of CD sales plummeting, download sales finally CD sales last year. 50.3% to 49.7%.
I agree that for whatever
TV is going to become that content is key and I also agree that we'll see more channels have dedicated apps like HBO and ESPN have (currently those apps are tied to cable subscriptions but I think that will slowly change in future). In a future full of channels-as-apps and internet-connected HDTVs, Blu-ray players and video game consoles that have all of those apps where does the TV fit in? If it's a set-top box it gets left out in the cold for being redundant, IMO. If it's an actual TV that's very risky because people aren't going to replace their TV every 12-24 months.Different market, different distribution model and different time. Hulu, YouTube and Netflix are all coming up with their own original content because just being a middleman isn't going to cut it the future.
Lethal
I'd give P2P the credit for blowing up the traditional music distribution market and, after nearly a decade of CD sales plummeting, download sales finally CD sales last year. 50.3% to 49.7%.
I agree that for whatever
Different market, different distribution model and different time. Hulu, YouTube and Netflix are all coming up with their own original content because just being a middleman isn't going to cut it the future.
Lethal
The problem here is while HBO Go has an iPad app, you have to be a Comcast subscriber to use it. The money goes to Comcast, not Apple. The only thing in the end for Apple is to make a kick-ass television with the
TV set top box inside the display. So you end up getting the same interface that TV gives you without the extra box and wires. Probably will be Quad HD, Siri, bezel-less and in 2 sizes.Yes the future is in being fully vertically integrated in terms of content. Apple has unlimited cash to produce their own content, but they are very reticent to get into businesses they have never been involved in.
Currently yes, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that change down the road.
Where's the hook to pull you into their ecosystem though? The iTMS drove iPod sales. The App Store drives iPod Touch, iPhone & iPad sales. They need a big software hook to driveThe only thing in the end for Apple is to make a kick-ass television with the
TV sales and they haven't found one yet.Lethal
I'd give P2P credit for making record labels take digital distribution more seriously but that's more along the lines of how movie piracy makes movie studios take notice. P2P isn't an actual business model or a legal distribution model. No money is going to the content provider. iTunes and other digital storefronts on the other hand came on the scene and paid the labels while presenting value to consumers. A single used to cost $3. Now a song is $1.29. A CD used to be $15. Now you can get an album for $9.99 or you have the option of only downloading the tracks you want.
I agree that for whatever
That's why I have a feeling they're gonna make a major play to revamp the entire business model behind television. That play will have them competing with cable providers for distribution rights and if it provides value to consumers, they'll win. Also, that Apple TV set top box should automatically be grandfathered into whatever business model Apple is trying to create and would be a cheap way for people who don't want to buy a new TV to get into Apple's distribution system.
All media though, and all business models changing because of the internet. Music, books, movies, video games all have changed because there are now cheaper and easier ways to get content to consumers. I really believe this a pattern and TV is no different.
Also, there's value in distribution companies owning their own IP but until their original content becomes the primary reason for paying for their services, that value doesn't mean a lot.
I don't see Apple's competitors really being the cable providers. Sure, power needs to be wrestled away from cable providers for Apple to try and get the exclusive content deals I think it needs but, IMO, Apple's real competitors are companies like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Starz, MS, Sony, Nintendo and any company that makes internet-ready TVs and Blu-ray players.
All the companies I listed by name are players in the 'new media' content distribution business. MS, Sony & Nintendo are also challengers on the hardware front and a report I read last year had video game consoles as the #1 way people were streaming movies/TV shows to their TVs. When
TV was new it offered a simple way to get streaming content to your TV but now that functionality is readily available in a number of devices (including the TV itself).I think TV is different though because the traditional distribution model for TV is different than it is for books or music. For a very long time books and music were purchased at retail stores but it really wasn't until DVDs took off that retail sales accounted for much of anything in the film and TV distribution models. Before that it had pretty much been see the movie at the theater and tune in Tuesdays at 9 to catch the next episode.
Amazon selling an eBook is not really that different than Walmart selling a physical book. Music distribution received a tweak of being able to buy any individual song you want (almost) as opposed to buying certain 'singles' or the whole album but the retail process of buying from Apple vs buying from a brick and mortar store isn't that different.
TV & film distribution though is totally getting turned on its head. Release windows for films are collapsing and will probably disappear entirely eventually. The day the movie opens in theaters you'll also be able to buy it or rent it. Have to tune in at Monday at 9 to catch the most recent episode of your favorite TV show? Not anymore. Video-on-demand anytime, anywhere. I think Netflix even released all the episodes for its new show Lillyhammer all at once.
Yeah, but the companies that do have valuable IP (either 1st party or 3rd party) are going to be in the drivers seat and the reason quality 1st party IP can be more valuable than quality 3rd parity IP is because the 1st party IP can't be taken away from you. Building a catalog of course takes time which is why Netflix, Hulu, and YT (even Amazon is rumored to be developing its own original content) will be playing catch up to HBO in that regard. Just like HBO is playing catch to being a content distributor in the vein of Netflix. If HBO GO, for example, eventually lets HBO interface directly with customers (no cable service needed) why would HBO want to strike an exclusivity deal with Apple, for example, when that would just limit HBO's potential audience?
The entire business model is already changing and I wonder if Apple is just going to hang out on the sidelines and see how things start shaking about before they remove
TV from hobby status. Lethal